ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Navy to cut its fleet by half

Go to page

LE

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.

Senior officers have said the plans will turn Britain's once-proud Navy into nothing more than a coastal defence force.

The Government has admitted that 13 unnamed warships are in a state of reduced readiness, putting them around 18 months away from active service. Today The Daily Telegraph can name a further six destroyers and frigates that are being proposed for cuts.

A need to cut the defence budget by Â£250 million this year to meet spending requirements has forced ministers to look at drastic measures.

MoD sources have admitted it is possible that the Royal Navy will discontinue one of its major commitments around the world at a time when Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord, has said more ships are needed to protect the high seas against terrorism and piracy.
advertisement

News of further cuts to what was once the world's most formidable fleet comes as critics say failings across the Services are becoming increasingly apparent.

More details are emerging of the near-squalor that soldiers are forced to tolerate in barracks when they return from six months of dangerous overseas operations.

Questions have also been raised about the poor pay for troops and equipment failures which continue to dog operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The six warships to be mothballed are the Type 22 frigates Cumberland, Chatham, Cornwall and Campbeltown and two Type 42 destroyers Southampton and Exeter.

It is likely that they will eventually be sold or scrapped. There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built.

Meanwhile the French navy, which will be far superior to the Royal Navy after the cuts, will announce before the April presidential elections that a new carrier will be built.

Two of eight advanced air defence Type 45 destroyers on the Navy's order books will not be bought, defence sources said. The order is already six months behind schedule and Â£157 million over budget.

A senior officer, currently serving with the Fleet in Portsmouth, said: "What this means is that we are now no better than a coastal defence force or a fleet of dug-out canoes. The Dutch now have a better navy than us."

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Steve Bush, editor of the monthly magazine Warship World, said the MoD was bankrupt following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"After 10 years of Labour government, the Royal Navy is on its knees without immediate and proper funding. I cannot see how it can recover âespecially if Mr Brown becomes the next prime minister," he said.

There are already reports that ships on operations are ignoring faults to weapons systems in order to save money but will spend cash if it is a health and safety issue.

The Navy is expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible, which has been laid up in Portsmouth. One of the three major ports is also under threat of closure. It is believed that the historic Navy headquarters of Portsmouth is most vulnerable.

Two unnamed mine counter-measure vessels and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers, Brambleleaf and Oakleaf, are also under threat.

Adam Ingram, the defence minister, admitted in a Parliamentary answer last month that 13 ships were at sea with 18 in port at 48 hours notice to deploy. The decision to tie up another six frigates will mean the Navy has just 25 warships left. This would mean giving up a major commitment such as the anti-drugs and hurricane support role in the Caribbean.

To protect Britain from attack today, the country has the frigates Monmouth and Montrose available with the carrier Ark Royal about to re-enter service after a lengthy refit.

The MoD said yesterday that it had no plans to cut the destroyer and frigate fleet but it "routinely reviewed" defence capabilities "to ensure resources are directed where our front line Armed Forces need them most".

A spokesman said: "We are some way from any decisions and just because a proposal is looked at does not mean that it will be implemented"

Old-Salt

We are in great danger of ending up like the Israeli's, ie: take a great war winning machine. Then spend all your time and resouces fighting occupation war. Then try to fight a real war. Then get your ass kicked.

War Hero

GCM

I can see why this is a big slap in the face for the Navy especially as they have played such a huge role in shaping the nations history. However, In the face of current problems with in the country ie NHS, education and housing I think we need to place jingoism to the side here.

Britain, unlike America, is not able to project power through its Navy to an exceptably level in time of international crisis. America has just sent a task force to sit of the Somalian coast-not something we could do. Of course The royal Navy has played its part in all recent conflicts but with the exception of the Falklands it has played a smaller role compared to the Army and Airforce and I would rather see cuts in the Navy than anywhere else. This is not the nineteenth century and there is no requirement to protect the trade routes and we are certainly not in a position to deliver some good old gun boat diplomacy.

So your advocating we ditch the Navy then? Utter b@llocks, who do you work for again? Old Tone by any chance?? if you think I'm being a bit harsh, re-read your post and see why I am advocating your stance is up your arrse matey

And which planet do you line on again??? Nothing and I mean nothing, is certain in this world of ours and all eventualities must be planned for. To lack an efficient Navy would be tantamount to suicide for this Island of ours and you, Sir, are suggesting this

Clanker

The only way the forces are going to be saved is with better management not more cuts. The cost of the kit that goes missing every year would help.

Are military pensions administered through the MOD or the department of work and pensions. If it is the MOD maybe it should be under the DWP so that the defence budget represents exactly how much is availiable to be spent on defence.

War Hero

MIA

I can see why this is a big slap in the face for the Navy especially as they have played such a huge role in shaping the nations history. However, In the face of current problems with in the country ie NHS, education and housing I think we need to place jingoism to the side here.

Britain, unlike America, is not able to project power through its Navy to an exceptably level in time of international crisis. America has just sent a task force to sit of the Somalian coast-not something we could do. Of course The royal Navy has played its part in all recent conflicts but with the exception of the Falklands it has played a smaller role compared to the Army and Airforce and I would rather see cuts in the Navy than anywhere else. This is not the nineteenth century and there is no requirement to protect the trade routes and we are certainly not in a position to deliver some good old gun boat diplomacy.

I think you'll find that that task force covers an area from the top of the Red Sea that stretches out as far as DG and goes up to the Strait of Hormuz covering an area of some 2 million square nautical miles and is known as CTF150. Oh, I forgot to mention something-that Task Force is currently being commanded by the Royal Navy.

This is not the nineteenth century and there is no requirement to protect the trade routes

Err, yes there is. Seabourn Spirit was attacked by pirates in late 2005 off the coast of Somalia. The result of this was that Lloyds of London increased their insurance premiums and designated certain routes as war zones. This has an effect on UK Plc and trade in general. Hence the need for coalition warships to protect trade routes such as HOA, SOH, etc etc from terrorist attack.

we are certainly not in a position to deliver some good old gun boat diplomacy

Really? How about TLAM launches into Afghanistan from our boats? NGS from RN Vessels into the Al Faw in 2003? Sierra Leone?

I guarantee you there is no bigger deterrent for a rogue nation to reconsider kicking off when there is a pussers grey war canoe sitting off the coast. And the very presence of an SSN (that's postion is unknown) will stop most countries from putting their navies to sea in a hostile environment.

RFA Wave Ruler has to date seized just under ONE BILLION pounds worth of drugs destined for the UK or Europe. The USCG Teams are the ones who carry out the arrests but it's the ship and Lynx a/c that do the actual busts. Weapon and drugs seizures are carried out in other parts of the world by RN Vessels and I know this for a fact because I have been directly involved.

BTW, what the fcuk is an air defence frigate? Gee, your knowledge of naval platforms really amazes me.....

Dzerzhinskiey, you are an ill-informed muppet with no true understanding of power projection or joint operations. Now fcuk off back to your box and stay in it.

GCM

War Hero

I note one of the comments in the article is that the much vaunted aircraft carriers due in 2014/5/7/8/9 are now not likely to happen either.

Bearing in mind much of our current fleet is being scrapped/sold off under the guise of paying for the 2 carriers, where will the money actually go? Our current carriers are near their sell by date too.

If we are still going to commit to adventures overseas I think that a Navy bigger than Holland would be a pre-requisite. I note that the French have announced they are building another big carrier - do they have the Naval commitments too, or is it a case of going alone as they always do and looking after their own welfare?

LE

As a copper I suppose I indirectly work for him but I dont fetch his slippers or open his front door for him. Im not advocating the scrapping of the Navy just its reduction. As I said if the Labour government (who has traditionally reduced the defence budget) are going to make cuts then I would rather see a number of air defence frigates and an old aircraft carrier go than battalions of mud slingers and squadrons of CAS fighters.

Ok, mate - to what size? You think that the AA role is all that frigates do?The difficulty I have with your view is that you seem to think that the role the Navy is required to do is possible if they decrease the fleet size further. I can assure you they can't. They are overstretched already. This means a reduction of tasks. Which ones do you chose to give up?

Reducing its numbers futher buggers them. Note that when you reduce ship numbers from a fleet you don't get a straight line degradation of capability, it reduces its capability exponentially.

Remember what the Navy said after Tony suggested that RN could help out with anti pirate duties in the Far East not so long ago? Manic laughter from Fleet and then everything went v quiet as someone told the ejit exactly what the implications were of his statement. He didn't have a clue.

Lastly, just what incentive is there for some youngster to join the Navy if these all go through? Lack of ships to serve on, little chance of deployment and a land base until someone decides we can afford the Navy again? I can see a recruitment shortfall and a long term retention problem a-coming.......Can't you?

PS What squadrons of CAS are you talking about? I'd love to know what dedicated CAS aircraft (squadrons of them!!) the RAF have........